tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post115627114786217953..comments2024-03-12T04:51:46.468-05:00Comments on Blue Gal: Finding the words...Fran / Blue Galhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18293627981248346055noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156394254570428822006-08-23T23:37:00.000-05:002006-08-23T23:37:00.000-05:00"reframing" is really 'adjusting the definition of..."reframing" is really 'adjusting the definition of..' is it not?<BR/><BR/>I've no advice for on the reframing issue, but here's an observation ABOUT the biggest issue--THE WAR-- that might serve the more politically articulate her on this blog thingie what you all have.<BR/><BR/>Before a war can be won it has to be defined BY BOTH SIDES. Each has to agree as to the cause and purpose of the war and thus each can determine the success or failure the winning or losing of the war. For instance if the US goes to war with Iraq because it has WMDs but Iraq DOESN'T have WMD's then Iraq will respond to the attack, not the reason behind it. Having no WMD's Iraq is confused and so is their response to the attack. The US then discovers that Iraq doesn't have WMDS and is equally confused. With no mutual understanding of why the war has been started each side then has to forumalate some metrics that will determine a win/loss/draw. But if one side then changes the premise of both cause and victory ( as the US did) the other side then has to accept the change, or stick with their own premise of why they were attacked and re-invent their own metrics to figure out what consitutes and win/loss/draw from their perspective. <BR/><BR/>If the two sides can't agree what they are fighting about in the first place, and if then one side changes their premise how the hell are either of them going to be able to figure out who is winning or losing or who has won or lost?<BR/><BR/>Sorry it's a little long but there you go. To win a war the opponent has to admit to having lost based upon a mutual understanding of what constitutes winning and losing. A war conducted upon cross purposes provide, The point is that warfare in principle is not chaotic unless the war is conducted based upon cross purposes, in which case eaqch side can claim a win or a draw at worst and regroup to fight again. And so it goes.5th Estatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14918749316906295703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156358615333644482006-08-23T13:43:00.000-05:002006-08-23T13:43:00.000-05:00Your 1st point, (Any student of US history remembe...Your 1st point, (Any student of US history remembers "the Communist threat" which led us to Vietnam and the same kind of quagmire we're in now.)has a serious problem. The Repubs have been proclaiming very loudly and ad nauseum for 15 years that they won the Cold War. As for Viet Nam, they claim that the "politicians" kept us from winning it. I don't think that your point will gain any traction until we've countered the degree to which these absurd fictions have taken hold in the public's mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156358503002335092006-08-23T13:41:00.000-05:002006-08-23T13:41:00.000-05:00Your 1st point, (Any student of US history remembe...Your 1st point, (Any student of US history remembers "the Communist threat" which led us to Vietnam and the same kind of quagmire we're in now.)has a serious problem. The Repubs have been proclaiming very loudly and ad nauseum for 15 years that they won the Cold War. As for Viet Nam, they claim that the "politicians" kept us from winning it. I don't think that your point will gain any traction until we've countered the degree to which these absurd fictions have taken hold in the public's mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156345120991563812006-08-23T09:58:00.000-05:002006-08-23T09:58:00.000-05:00Study the Newt himself on the subject-http://www.i...Study the Newt himself on the subject-<BR/><BR/>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm<BR/><BR/>His memo is a concise lesson on controlling the language and reframing the debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156292387828793682006-08-22T19:19:00.000-05:002006-08-22T19:19:00.000-05:00If only one could set up fish-slapping rights for ...If only one could set up fish-slapping rights for the former administration as a fund-raiser...Shunrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17016600058016957827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156288566192051072006-08-22T18:16:00.000-05:002006-08-22T18:16:00.000-05:00Thanks, anon. Tom Tancredo is the Colorado republ...Thanks, anon. Tom Tancredo is the Colorado republican who suggested nuking Mecca if Iran nuked us. Real mature. <BR/><BR/>His opponent, Bill Winter, is a veteran and one of the fighting Dems. <BR/><BR/>I guess we'll have to give you the Gonzales fish slap privilege, but if it comes down to it, I'm auctioning Cheney.Fran / Blue Galhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18293627981248346055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156287775341744452006-08-22T18:02:00.000-05:002006-08-22T18:02:00.000-05:00ok I get to throw Tom Tancredo's stuff out on the...ok I get to throw <A HREF="http://www.progressiveu.org/2005/blog/news-wires/conservative-congressman-pushes-for-nuclear-attack-on-mecca" REL="nofollow"> Tom Tancredo's</A> stuff out on the lawn, and smack Alberto Gonzales with the fish. I called it first. Great writing, BG.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156280004164767852006-08-22T15:53:00.000-05:002006-08-22T15:53:00.000-05:00The concept of treating terrorism as crime rather ...The concept of treating terrorism as crime rather than war was used against Kerry in 2004. While it's accurate, I'm afraid it just gives Republicans another opportunity to twist the meaning of what our side says.<BR/><BR/>This is war, 9/11 changed everything, calling terrorism a crime is pre-9/11 thinking, cut and run, cut and jog, coward, traitor, al Qaeda lover, evil evil evil etc.qwertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034964906035978001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8983386.post-1156275744912654652006-08-22T14:42:00.000-05:002006-08-22T14:42:00.000-05:00I suggest candor, rather than rhetoric.We have bee...I suggest candor, rather than rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>We have been fed almost 100% propaganda and rhetoric from Dubya and the old boys. Why not frame things in terms of the broader picture? <BR/><BR/>Fact: Oil dependency isn't just as easy as terrorists versus Americans. It is a hugely complicated, extremely convoluted, immensely global issue. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I would explain why the economies of oil exporting Arabic states are closely tied to the success of the American economy. <BR/><BR/>I would also explain that the economies of Russia, China, India and other developing second world countries are at this point too dysfunctional to effectively process, distribute, and utilize petroleum to the degree which the US is able. <BR/><BR/>It is not as easy as just shifting to ethanol and/or hydrogen fuel. It requires a lengthy handover that depends largely on the development of the economies of said second world countries.<BR/><BR/>I read a report the other day that said that it would China 100 years to develop as efficient an interstate highway system as ours. Until that day arrives, it is not economically feasible for them to need multiple automobiles. <BR/><BR/>I immensely regret how dumbed down the analysis from both sides has been up to this point. Both sides want to reduce this down to clever soundbites and talking points, and things are rarely that simplistic.Comrade Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11393718048145784837noreply@blogger.com